Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-15> for your review

[Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jim,

Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly and have no further questions. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process.

Updated XML file:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.xml

Updated output files:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.pdf

Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491-auth48diff.html

Comprehensive Diffs:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side diff)

Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. 

Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. 

For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9491

Thank you,

RFC Editor/st

> On Oct 24, 2023, at 10:44 AM, James Guichard <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sarah,
> 
> Please see below ..
> 
> Jim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 11:37 AM
> To: James Guichard <[e-mail]>; Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; RFC Editor <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-15> for your review
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Jim and Jeff,
> 
> Thank you for your replies. We have updated the document accordingly.
> 
> We have a few followup questions/comments.
> 
> 1) Regarding:
> 
>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] As this document expands "SFC" as "Service Function
>>>> Chaining", should "SFC" be updated to "service function chain" in the instances below?
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> The two SR data plane encapsulations, namely SR-MPLS [RFC8660] and
>>>> SRv6 [RFC8754], can both encode an SF as a segment so that an SFC
>>>> can be specified as a segment list.
>>>> ...
>>>> *  SR-based SFC with integrated NSH service plane: in this scenario
>>>> each service hop of the SFC is represented as a segment of the SR
>>>> segment-list.
>>>> ...
>>>> Referring to Figure 1, packets of flow F in DC1 are classified into
>>>> an NSH-based SFC and encapsulated after classification as <Inner
>>>> Pkt><NSH: SPI 100, SI 255><Outer-transport> and forwarded to SFF1
>>>> (which is the first SFF hop for this service function chain).
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>> The two SR data plane encapsulations, namely SR-MPLS [RFC8660] and
>>>> SRv6 [RFC8754], can encode an SF as a segment so that a service
>>>> function chain can be specified as a segment list.
>>>> ...
>>>> SR-based SFC with integrated NSH service plane:
>>>> In this scenario, each service hop of the service function chain is
>>>> represented as a segment of the SR segment list.
>>>> ...
>>>> Referring to Figure 1, packets of flow F in DC1 are classified into
>>>> an NSH-based service function chain, encapsulated after
>>>> classification as <Inner Pkt><NSH: SPI 100, SI
>>>> 255><Outer-transport>, and forwarded to SFF1 (which is the first SFF hop for this service function chain).
>>>> -->
>> 
>> Jim> I think SFC is fine as it is defined in the terminology. No need to expand it here.
> 
> To clarify, we question if "SFC" should be updated to "service function chain" in the sentences above because the usual expansion "Service Function Chaining" seems odd with the articles "an" and "the". Alternately, should the articles be removed from the phrases "an SFC", "the SFC", and "an NSH-based SFC" in the sentence above? Or would you still like to retain the original?
> 
> Jim> Ah, I see what you mean now - yes, update it to "service function chain" as this flows better.
> 
> Perhaps (remove articles before SFC):
> The two SR data plane encapsulations, namely SR-MPLS [RFC8660] and
> SRv6 [RFC8754], can encode an SF as a segment so that SFC can be specified  as a segment list.
> ...
> In this scenario, each service hop of SFC is  represented as a segment of the SR segment list.
> ...
> Referring to Figure 1, packets of flow F in DC1 are classified into  NSH-based SFC, encapsulated after  classification as <Inner Pkt><NSH: SPI 100, SI 255><Outer-transport>, and forwarded to SFF1  (which is the first SFF hop for this service function chain).
> 
> 
> 2) Regarding:
> 
>>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of
>>>> the online Style Guide
>>>> <https://ww/
>>>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=05
>>>> %7C01%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Ce95d1d864a874ba95eb908dbd1
>>>> 7d3a5f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C63833410803483488
>>>> 8%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI
>>>> 6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TpHKkMASxqKohlUCPcwliwT
>>>> JCxGfHV4GX5oKjh3ThlQ%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
>>>> 
>>>> For example, please consider whether "master" should be updated.
>>>> -->
>> 
>> Jim> Yes, "master" should be updated.
> 
> We don't find it necessary to update the instance of 'master' in this sentence due to inclusive language, but we do have a question about clarity: What is the intended meaning of "master the resulting complexity" in this sentence? Could it be rephrased as "reduce the resulting complexity"?
> 
> Jim> yes this reads better as the point is to help facilitate a reduction in complexity.
> 
> Jim
> 
> Original:
> SFC techniques are meant to rationalize the service delivery logic
> and master the resulting complexity while optimizing service
> activation time cycles for operators that need more agile service
> delivery procedures to better accommodate ever-demanding customer
> requirements.
> 
> 
> Updated XML file:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.xml
> 
> Updated output files:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.pdf
> 
> Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491-auth48diff.html
> 
> Comprehensive Diffs:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491-diff.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side diff)
> 
> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version.
> 
> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9491
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> RFC Editor/st
> 
>> On Oct 23, 2023, at 3:38 PM, Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Sarah,
>> 
>> Apologies for the delay, I'm fine with the changes as proposed and addressed by Jim.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Jeff
>> 
>>> On Oct 10, 2023, at 5:46 AM, Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Greetings,
>>> 
>>> Just a friendly weekly reminder that this document awaits your attention.
>>> 
>>> Please see the document-specific questions and AUTH48 announcement in this thread and let us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the AUTH48 review process.
>>> 
>>> Please note that the AUTH48 status page of this document is viewable at:
>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9491
>>> 
>>> AUTH48 FAQs are available at https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#auth48.
>>> 
>>> We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> RFC Editor/st
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 3, 2023, at 6:39 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Authors,
>>>> 
>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>>> 
>>>> 1) <!--[rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been updated as follows. "the" has been added before "Network Service Header".
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> Integration of Network Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing for
>>>> Service Function Chaining (SFC)
>>>> 
>>>> Current:
>>>> Integration of the Network Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing for
>>>> Service Function Chaining (SFC)
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we change "while" to "whereas" here? This
>>>> would make it clear that the intended meaning is a contrast rather than
>>>> "at the same time".
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> Combining these technologies allows SR to be used for steering
>>>> packets between Service Function Forwarders (SFF) along a given
>>>> Service Function Path (SFP) while NSH has the responsibility for
>>>> maintaining the integrity of the service plane, the SFC instance
>>>> context, and any associated metadata.
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>> Combining these technologies allows SR to be used for steering
>>>> packets between Service Function Forwarders (SFFs) along a given
>>>> Service Function Path (SFP), whereas the NSH is responsible for
>>>> maintaining the integrity of the service plane, the SFC instance
>>>> context, and any associated metadata.
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] As this document expands "SFC" as "Service Function Chaining",
>>>> should "SFC" be updated to "service function chain" in the instances below?
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> The two SR data plane encapsulations, namely SR-MPLS [RFC8660] and
>>>> SRv6 [RFC8754], can both encode an SF as a segment so that an SFC can
>>>> be specified as a segment list.
>>>> ...
>>>> *  SR-based SFC with integrated NSH service plane: in this scenario
>>>>   each service hop of the SFC is represented as a segment of the SR
>>>>   segment-list.
>>>> ...
>>>> Referring to Figure 1, packets of flow F in DC1 are classified into
>>>> an NSH-based SFC and encapsulated after classification as <Inner
>>>> Pkt><NSH: SPI 100, SI 255><Outer-transport> and forwarded to SFF1
>>>> (which is the first SFF hop for this service function chain).
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>> The two SR data plane encapsulations, namely SR-MPLS [RFC8660] and
>>>> SRv6 [RFC8754], can encode an SF as a segment so that a service function
>>>> chain can be specified as a segment list.
>>>> ...
>>>> SR-based SFC with integrated NSH service plane:
>>>>   In this scenario, each service hop of the service function chain is
>>>>   represented as a segment of the SR segment list.
>>>> ...
>>>> Referring to Figure 1, packets of flow F in DC1 are classified into
>>>> an NSH-based service function chain, encapsulated after classification as
>>>> <Inner Pkt><NSH: SPI 100, SI 255><Outer-transport>, and forwarded to SFF1
>>>> (which is the first SFF hop for this service function chain).
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 4) <!--[rfced] May we update this sentence for clarity?
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> A classifier MUST use an NSH Service Path Identifier (SPI) per SR
>>>> policy so that different traffic flows that use the same NSH Service
>>>> Function Path (SFP) but different SR policy can coexist on the same
>>>> SFP without conflict during SFF processing.
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>> A classifier MUST use one NSH Service Path Identifier (SPI) for each
>>>> SR policy so that different traffic flows can use the same NSH Service
>>>> Function Path (SFP) and different SR policies can coexist on the same
>>>> SFP without conflict during SFF processing.
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we removed the extraneous comma on line 7 of Figure 4. Please
>>>> let us know if there are any objections.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> |N(100,255) | ... |N(100,253) |                                       ,
>>>> 
>>>> Current:
>>>> |N(100,255) | ... |N(100,253) |
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] In Section 5.2, we have formatted text as sourcecode and
>>>> set the type attribute to "pseudocode" to reflect what appears in
>>>> Section 4.3.1.1 of RFC 8754. Please review to ensure correctness.
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether the following note should be in
>>>> the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for content that
>>>> is semantically less important or tangential to the content that
>>>> surrounds it" (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside).
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> Note: The End.NSH behavior interrupts the normal SRH packet
>>>> processing as described in [RFC8754] section 4.3.1.1, which does not
>>>> continue to S16 at this time.
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 8) <!--[rfced] Should Table 2 be updated to include the Hex and Change Controller
>>>> columns to match what appears in the "SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors" registry (see
>>>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/segment-routing.xhtml>)?
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] This text indicates the affiliations (and authors) provided
>>>> valuable input and text contributions. Is this as intended? Or was it the
>>>> authors only (not the affiliations) that contributed this way?
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> The following co-authors, along with their respective affiliations at
>>>> the time of publication, provided valuable inputs and text contributions
>>>> to this document.
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
>>>> 
>>>> a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used
>>>> inconsistently. We have updated to use "Prefix-SID" to reflect usage
>>>> in previously published RFCs. Please let us know of any objections.
>>>> 
>>>> prefix SID vs. Prefix SID vs. prefix-SID vs. Prefix-SID
>>>> 
>>>> b) We note that "SF-SFF" and "SFF-SFF" are both used in this document. Are
>>>> these abbreviations both used for the same term? Or are they two different
>>>> terms?
>>>> 
>>>> c) We note that Figure 5 contains "MPLS-SR", while the text defines
>>>> "SR-MPLS". May update to "SR-MPLS" to reflect usage in previously published
>>>> RFCs?
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use
>>>> per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
>>>> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
>>>> 
>>>> Media Access Control (MAC)
>>>> SR over IPv6 (SRv6)
>>>> Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP)
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
>>>> Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
>>>> 
>>>> For example, please consider whether "master" should be updated.
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> 
>>>> RFC Editor/st/ap
>>>> 
>>>> On Oct 3, 2023, at 4:38 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>> 
>>>> Updated 2023/10/03
>>>> 
>>>> RFC Author(s):
>>>> --------------
>>>> 
>>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>>>> 
>>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and
>>>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
>>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
>>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
>>>> 
>>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
>>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
>>>> your approval.
>>>> 
>>>> Planning your review
>>>> ---------------------
>>>> 
>>>> Please review the following aspects of your document:
>>>> 
>>>> *  RFC Editor questions
>>>> 
>>>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
>>>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
>>>> follows:
>>>> 
>>>> <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>>>> 
>>>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>>>> 
>>>> *  Changes submitted by coauthors
>>>> 
>>>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
>>>> coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you
>>>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>>>> 
>>>> *  Content
>>>> 
>>>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
>>>> change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
>>>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>>>> - contact information
>>>> - references
>>>> 
>>>> *  Copyright notices and legends
>>>> 
>>>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>>>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
>>>> (TLP - https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
>>>> 
>>>> *  Semantic markup
>>>> 
>>>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
>>>> content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
>>>> and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at
>>>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
>>>> 
>>>> *  Formatted output
>>>> 
>>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
>>>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
>>>> reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting
>>>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Submitting changes
>>>> ------------------
>>>> 
>>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using 'REPLY ALL' as all
>>>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
>>>> include:
>>>> 
>>>> *  your coauthors
>>>> 
>>>> *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
>>>> 
>>>> *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
>>>>   IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
>>>>   responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>>>> 
>>>> *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list
>>>>   to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
>>>>   list:
>>>> 
>>>>  *  More info:
>>>>     https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
>>>> 
>>>>  *  The archive itself:
>>>>     https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
>>>> 
>>>>  *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
>>>>     of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
>>>>     If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
>>>>     have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
>>>>     [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and
>>>>     its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
>>>> 
>>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>>>> 
>>>> An update to the provided XML file
>>>> - OR -
>>>> An explicit list of changes in this format
>>>> 
>>>> Section # (or indicate Global)
>>>> 
>>>> OLD:
>>>> old text
>>>> 
>>>> NEW:
>>>> new text
>>>> 
>>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
>>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>>>> 
>>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
>>>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
>>>> and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in
>>>> the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Approving for publication
>>>> --------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
>>>> that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use 'REPLY ALL',
>>>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Files
>>>> -----
>>>> 
>>>> The files are available here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.xml
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.pdf
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.txt
>>>> 
>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491-diff.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>>> 
>>>> Diff of the XML:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491-xmldiff1.html
>>>> 
>>>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
>>>> diff files of the XML.
>>>> 
>>>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.original.v2v3.xml
>>>> 
>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>>>> only:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.form.xml
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Tracking progress
>>>> -----------------
>>>> 
>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9491
>>>> 
>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>> 
>>>> RFC Editor
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> RFC9491 (draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-15)
>>>> 
>>>> Title            : Integration of Network Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing for Service Function Chaining (SFC)
>>>> Author(s)        : J. Guichard, Ed., J. Tantsura, Ed.
>>>> WG Chair(s)      : Bruno Decraene, Alvaro Retana, Joel M. Halpern
>>>> 
>>>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston